Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vodafone CEO Says Banning Huawei Could Set Europe's 5G Rollout Back Another Two Years (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cause-and-effect dept.

The CEO of Vodafone, the world's second-largest mobile operator, warned excluding Huawei from Europe's 5G networks could be "hugely disruptive" to national infrastructure and consumers. CEO Nick Read said that it would be "very very expensive" for operators and consumers if companies were forced to swap their Huawei equipment in favor of competitors', adding it would delay Europe's 5G rollout by "probably two years." CNBC reports: Speaking at a press conference at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona Monday, Vodafone CEO Nick Read said banning Huawei from providing 5G infrastructure in Europe would hamper competition in the supply chain. China's Huawei, Finland's Nokia and Sweden's Ericsson are the three biggest providers of telecommunications equipment in the world, accounting for more than half of revenues in the market, according to research firm Dell'Oro Group. "If we concentrate it down to two players I think that's an unhealthy position not just for us as an industry but also for national infrastructure in the country," Read said.

"It structurally disadvantages Europe," he said "Of course the U.S. don't have that problem because they don't put Huawei equipment in." Vodafone's Read said governments need to take a "fact-based" approach to assessing security concerns with Huawei, adding he will not be meeting with any U.S. officials in Barcelona this week. "I would at this stage prefer to be working with governments and securities on a national basis and making sure we have a fact-based conversation," he said. Vodafone's Read said there is "high competition" among the three equipment providers but added Huawei has had "leading technology." In a roundtable with media on Sunday in Barcelona, Huawei's rotating chairman Guo Ping claimed the company is 12 months ahead of its competitors when it comes to 5G technology. Huawei has been left out of the U.S. market with officials citing security concerns that its technology could enable spying from the Chinese government, accusations Huawei denies. The U.S., the UK and Germany are weighing possible bans on Huawei's 5G equipment citing security risks.

53 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. less disruptive compared to backdoors. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, this is less disruptive than having backdoors in it. Far far better for Europe to buy European 5G.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Seconded. And I'm not even European.

    2. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Jzanu · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nope, most high-tech EU firms depend on advancing communications infrastructure that lets them stay profitable. Delaying advancement is a major risk, and an actual one. This fantasy yellow-peril BS is racism by another name.

    3. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe they could worry about amortizing costs of 4G deployment and start offering non-ridiculous prices in the first place before worrying about 5G. Also, "high-tech EU firms" are very unlikely to depend on mobile connection for *all* their communication.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      The firms at risk from slow expansion are not the ones responsible for the 4G network. They are the business customers served. Those with field offices and personnel scattered throughout the member nations and who rely on speedy data transfer for operations. Especially the banking sector (public and semi-public), retailers, manufacturers, shipping companies, etc. The ones powering the EU economy. Most things are more complex than the busyboy situation at the Greek joint down the road.

    5. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To hold to that, they should also have banned the by for more problematic gear, made in USA, even worse than made it China, a whole lot worse.

      There is nothing wrong with demanding that equipment in essential digital infrastructure all be locally made but that is the way it should be done and not upon the basis of banning countries. This, especially when you ban a country with little or not proof and allow a country with lots of public proof of actively hacking even it's allies networks. US allies can not trust US equipment, why should anyone else.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But they're not being harmed by inadequate equipment, they're being harmed by ridiculous pricing. That's NOT going to be fixed by 5G deployment any more than it was fixed by 4G deployment.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, Huawei margin of 12 months is a lie. It would surprise me if there is a margin at all.

      My reasoning: CMCC, the biggest operator in China (and in the world) is government owned. It has several deals and testing sites with Nokia and Ericsson, on latest 4G and 5G technologies. Most of the deals were done within the last year.
      As Huwai is suspected of government connections, and if it's equipment is so superior (their CEO said the margin is so high), one would expect no outside equipment is needed. Yet, the deals are in motion, equipment is tested in China. Maybe it is industrial spying, as 5G progresses so fast Chinese companies need to resort to catching up. So Huwai is maybe in front, and maybe is a little behind. But the gap is not so large if it's even present.

      What will hinder 5G acceptance in Europe is spectrum allocation. As Nokia CEO pointed out in Barcelona, Europe is not freeing the spectrum fast enough, or the prices are through the roof.

      And for the 5G nay-sayers: network slicing is needed to get low latency/(low or even high) speeds needed for machine to machine, as high latency/high speeds we already have with latest 4G speeds. Low latency is the key for autonomous vehicles, robots, and other critical systems.

      Source for the CMCC: https://www.zdnet.com/article/nokia-signs-2b-deals-with-chinese-carriers-ahead-of-5g/

    8. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Yeah... having a blazing fast wireless network isn't going to be all that helpful if the Chinese have an "off" switch for it when they do something to piss them off.

    9. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      This fantasy yellow-peril BS is racism by another name.

      "Fantasy BS"??? Are you kidding?

      We KNOW how Huawei cheats and spies. It's neither fantasy or speculation.

      Trusting your communications infrastructure to lying, spying Huawei would be an act of sheer stupidity.

    10. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's not about that. It's about the American intelligence agencies NOT having backdoors into the equipment. That, and racism.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      For whatever it's worth, I had mistrust for Cisco before it was cool.

    12. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by ycv · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Could you please provide any reference of actual proof? I still haven't seen any, only broad claims.

      We have had so many proofs of spying from US infrastructure companies, I believe hat the first assumption is that you can't trust the infrastructure, wherever it comes from. The communication protocols should take tat into account and encrypt everything with strong end to end crypto. The downside being that spying would then be made more difficult for our 'allies'.

    13. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this is less disruptive than having backdoors in it.

      Not really. By it's nature espionage is not disruptive. Plus you're not guaranteeing preventing backdoors by limiting one vendor based on the word of the very people who have been caught spying on your communication.

    14. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      National intelligence agencies have full access to the hardware and software, it should be possible to certify this stuff free of back doors. Unless there is some inherent design flaw in 5G that would let the maker remotely take control that can't be blocked. The sort of structural backdoor the NSA would design into it so they can continue collecting everyone's secrets forever.

    15. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We KNOW that the US and Europe cheats and spies too.

      In fact so far no-one has managed to find a confirmed Chinese government backdoor. But we have absolute proof of US and UK ones.

      Arguably that's even worse for us because our own governments can do us far more harm than the Chinese government.

      This idea that you have to trust your infrastructure is the problem. We will always lose if we rely on trusting the hardware. For example, why trust the ISP's router when you can VPN traffic through it?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Since Huawei have offered to allow security audits of the code, why not take them up? Don't trust, verify.

      This isn't about security, this is about western companies losing out on the lucrative 5G upgrade because Huawei has all the patents and beat them to market by years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To hold to that, they should also have banned the by for more problematic gear, made in USA, even worse than made it China, a whole lot worse.

      Wow - three posts before someone sings the praises of Huawei, and makes this the fault of Evul 'Murrica.

      Ever wonder why people consider you a nutcase? This isn't about America. It isn't about Apple, it's about Europe and it's about Huawei, a provider of known spyware. There must be some reason that Huawei is going to hold up 5G rollout.

      You can collect your yuan now, and I'll stand by for your buds to mod me down to -1.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The firms at risk from slow expansion are not the ones responsible for the 4G network. They are the business customers served. Those with field offices and personnel scattered throughout the member nations and who rely on speedy data transfer for operations.

      There ya go. The big problem is that business data access is exactly what is wanted.

      Many Slashdot users seem to think that the backdoors and phone spying is all about espionage or finding kiddie porn on their devices. But knowing a competitor's business plans and decisions and data is the real pot o' gold.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We KNOW that the US and Europe cheats and spies too.

      In fact so far no-one has managed to find a confirmed Chinese government backdoor.

      Have you considered moving to China, Animojo? I think you would really like it there.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's not about that. It's about the American intelligence agencies NOT having backdoors into the equipment. That, and racism.

      Sigh...... Backdoors iz backdoorz. You find it, and you can use it. And really, finding backdoors is hardly rocket surgery.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Don't underestimate the ability to make some really obfuscated solution. And how can anyone be sure that the software that the intelligence agencies gets is the same that's executing on the network devices?

      Just consider what the price to pay is if there's a backdoor implemented that's extremely convoluted and could be sprung any time.

      Especially something that could cause all devices in the net to shut down and go into "brick mode" by a remote command. Also don't underestimate the knowledge of installation locations - sometimes it's all that's needed combined with one or two persons entering a key facility and drop an inside electronic bomb.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    22. Re:less disruptive compared to backdoors. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Here is news: Everything has backdoors in it these days. The idiots at the NSA, GCHQ, etc. made sure of that. But the other thing is that any security expert knows that while you cannot trust the network, you also do not need to. End-to-end encryption solves that problem.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. Things I know, things I don't know. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know if Huawei can be trusted.
    I do know that anyone mistrusting Huawei that still trusts Cisco is naive.
    I don't know if this warning will get to anyone in time, or if it will be heeded.
    I do know this post will be aggressively attacked by sock puppet moderation and astro-turfing trolls.

    1. Re:Things I know, things I don't know. by Gabest · · Score: 1

      Hard to imagine, but most companies east to the iron curtain were and still partially owned by their own government. Aren't you afraid having Deutsche Telekom as your carrier? The former nazi state has 38% in it.

    2. Re:Things I know, things I don't know. by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      China is one of the top sources BLAMED FOR hacking against western commercial software/hardware companies.

      FTFY.

    3. Re:Things I know, things I don't know. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Aren't you afraid having Deutsche Telekom as your carrier?

      Who on earth would have reason to fear Germany at this point? So no, In fact so no I have T-Mobile as my cellular carrier.

      China is far more realistic to be concerned about for all sorts of reasons.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re: Things I know, things I don't know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Israel stole/hacked their entire nuclear program from the USA. They seem to have got off lightly. How is it they never get mentoned as a cyber threat but its alwYs China, China, China...

    5. Re:Things I know, things I don't know. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Huawei can be trusted to deliver equipment that works and that is reasonably priced. That is better than what the competitors have to offer. You cannot trust any network equipment to not have backdoors these days anyways.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re: Things I know, things I don't know. by budsetr · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that is just politics. We wanted Isreal to have nukes but couldn't be seen giving them the tech. So Isreal "stole" the tech from us.

  3. I mean... does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like seriously? Does it? Do you need that much faster speed(that you're probably not going to get) and limited bandwidth(10GB per month for $100?! sign me in!), on your mobile phone?

    I'd argue most people just use their data to access their social media or other crap instead of doing anything productive with that mobile bandwidth and anyone smart enough use wifi anyway. So they can afford to wait 2 extra years, let more phones be released that are compatible with it first.

    1. Re:I mean... does it matter? by gabebear · · Score: 1

      Like seriously? Does it? Do you need that much faster speed(that you're probably not going to get) and limited bandwidth(10GB per month for $100?! sign me in!), on your mobile phone?...

      • 5G millimeter-band should DRASTICALLY drop the cost to connect homes and help give people options for home internet.
      • 5G sub-6ghz-band should give a 4-10x boost to the number of devices that can be connected in an area

      It’s going to be a LONG time before anyone sees any benefit from 5G. Samsung’s “5G” S10 only supports the millimeter-band... making it fairly useless unless you want to find the prefect spot where it can actually receive a signal and use it as a WiFi access point. It’s going to be hard to tell where 5G is going for another year or two... I could see why a 2year delay would alarm someone trying to figure that out.

    2. Re:I mean... does it matter? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Do you need that much faster speed(that you're probably not going to get) and limited bandwidth(10GB per month for $100?! sign me in!), on your mobile phone?

      Yes. Speed reduces latency. It reduces active time on the modem and helps reduce battery life. Additionally it has better capacity for devices, better handover between towers, it also provides an ultra low power platform for connected devices (replacing not only LTE but also LoRa)

    3. Re:I mean... does it matter? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Speed and latency are not the same. Speed is volume of data over time while latency is how fast the network responds. A station waggon full of optical tapes has high speed of transfer but terrible latency. Given how slowly north american ISP's roll out network bandwidth we can assume 5G will have low latency combined with low speed.

    4. Re:I mean... does it matter? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sure in terms of network you're right. I'm talking about in terms of the user using their device. Reduced page load times means navigation is faster means less sitting and waiting on your device.

      Latency wasn't the best term to describe it, but the point was just because I only browse slashdot all day doesn't mean I'd be happier if each page loaded in 0.5 seconds instead of 2 seconds.

  4. Shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone is so concerned! I mean literally hundreds of millions of people cannot live without 5G Internet. Oh, wait, most find 3G quite sufficient for their needs. It's not like you need to watch high bitrate HDR 4K movies on your cell phone or send gigabytes of data daily. // b.

    1. Re:Shocker by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You're an idiot if you think speed is the only enabler of this technology and that "people" are the only target market.

      I for one am looking forward to better battery life, seamless tower handover, and not having my phone drop off every time there's people watching a football game in the stadium next door.

    2. Re:Shocker by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people on Vodafone do think they need 5G because their current 4G is so terrible. The Three network used to be able to out-perform 4G using their 3G network because 'the big guys' did such a terrible job of making 4G work.

      Vodafone (and O2, and EE) will all say the "only" solution is 5G - that's the only way people can get better coverage, better speeds etc. The truth is of course that it's because they've already bid on the frequencies and so want to get them making money as soon as possible. Those without the frequencies will just squeeze more out of their existing tech than you could ever hope to get out 'the big guys'. Heaven forbid that they should put up a few more cells in places where their coverage is terrible.

      The mobile telcos have consistently shown themselves to be as slimy as US ISPs when it comes to making networks actually work. They've had to be regulated into doing anything useful for the consumer on numerous occasions, and I wouldn't be surprised to find this will be another one.

    3. Re:Shocker by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot if you think speed is the only enabler of this technology and that "people" are the only target market.

      I for one am looking forward to better battery life, seamless tower handover, and not having my phone drop off every time there's people watching a football game in the stadium next door.

      It will be interesting for certain. As 5G works it's way upwards in frequency, the RF doesn't behave quite like people want it to. 24 to 40 GHz? I will be munching on popcorn, watching the increased Bandwidth - good - the radically shortened range - sometimes good, sometimes bad, and then there is the atmospheric effects. There are bandwidth tricks too, but while infinite bandwidth can be available at a given frequency - don't get excited - it takes infinite power long before that bandwidth is realized.

      Digitally oriented people often have trouble understanding RF. And we are rapidly approaching saturation. The tricks to stretch bandwidth are pretty cool and clever. But eventually, the noise floor destroys the usefulness.

      I have one of these hanging in my office for folks to find space for their digital RF dreams https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... A pretty cool chart, but it shows what we are up against.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Shocker by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Heaven forbid that they should put up a few more cells in places where their coverage is terrible.

      Whooee, if they are reluctant to put up more towers now, just wait until they find out how many they have to put up for the higher 5G frequencies.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Also buy this magazine by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    or the dog gets it.

    Also, while I'll admit I don't know if Huawei really is a problem or not, I find it hard to believe they couldn't just buy from the same companies the US is getting it's equipment from.

    Then again, it's all made in China anyway, so does it matter?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Buy better by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Consider Sweden and Finland. Look at what Poland is considering. What Taiwan the real China is doing.
    Stop supporting Communist China.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. If the concern is for real then it's a no brainer by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they suspect Huwaii isn't secure, then it's irrelevant how many years it sets them back.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  8. Bend to corporatism? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the CEO of a big company that intends to use Huawei gear instead of spending the money on developing their own/waiting for more trustworthy but possibly more exepnsive alternatives from other places is whining that "it will take more time"? How about worrying about your customers and their information privacy before you worry about your wallet - f*ck you Vodafone.

  9. What's the rush? by melted · · Score: 1

    LTE is fast enough for 99.9% of use cases.

  10. 2 years by jaklode · · Score: 1

    2 years does not seem a particularly long time.

  11. Why not just steal their tech? by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    Why not just steal their tech and launch a homegrown version? It's not like the Chinese don't steal everyone's tech with government sponsorship. What goes around comes around.

  12. It's a small price to pay. by robi5 · · Score: 1

    It's a small price to pay.
    It's a small price to pay.
    It's a small price to pay.

  13. Re:you full of shit troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China is not a country where citizens can enjoy freedom of expression, freedom of religion, political freedoms, etc. The Uighurs are actively suppressed and a million of them are held in concentration camps. There is good reason as why equipment from China should not be trusted. Of course, there is not much reason to trust critical and infrastructure equipment from any non-free country with nuclear weapons. But I mistrust U.S.-made equipment less than what comes out of the People's Republic, or Russia. I would certainly trust EU-made stuff more. Except censorship-inducing Articles 11 and 13 of the proposed update to the EU Copyright Directive, pushed by MEP Axel Voss.

  14. If you really want the "leading technology" by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Just go straight to whoever Huawei stole it from in the first place.

  15. I don't get it by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    This whole things smells fishy. For one, any country that allows Huawei to build the 5G shit is allowing a foreign government to have control of their telecommunications infrastructure which just sounds bad regardless - even if it were Canada or the US, it'd still seem like a bad idea.

    The fact that China is really pushing so hard makes it seem (at least to me) that they are lowballing on the offer and taking a financial hit... to me, because their payoff is getting access to an entire country's telecommunication system... Which again, sounds like something you wouldn't want a foreign country to be able to easily tap into...

  16. Re:also Huawei taking Cisco's code by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Ever wonder why people consider you a nutcase? This isn't about America. It isn't about Apple, it's about Europe and it's about Huawei, a provider of known spyware. There must be some reason that Huawei is going to hold up 5G rollout.

    People also seem to have forgotten (or not know about) Huawei's code theft from Cisco:

    * https://blogs.cisco.com/news/h...

    Isn't there some way this can be Google's fault?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  17. Re: LOL you're funny by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Umm, try reading the article, lee

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.